Sierra Club v. United States Department of Transportation’s Empirical Analysis
753 F.2d 120 · 1985
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 35 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 127 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey (1991), Sierra Club v. Slater (1997)
52 federal appellate · 35 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 406D · 42 U.S.C. § 4321 (§ 2 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (§ 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) · 49 U.S.C. § 303
Relies on Bradley v. J. F. Batte & Sons of Richmond, Inc. · PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins · South Dakota v. Nebraska · Ethyl Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, Ppg Industries, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Company v. Environmental Protection Agency, Nalco Chemical Company v. Environmental Protection Agency, National Petroleum Refiners Association v. Environmental Protection Agency · California Co. v. Federal Power Commission
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 127 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, the agency [has] accurately identified the relevant environmental concern. Second, once the agency has identified the problem it must have taken a ‘hard look’ at the problem in preparing the EA. Third, if a finding of no significant impact is made, the agency must be able to make a convincing case for its finding. Last, if the agency does find an impact of true significance, preparation of an EIS can be avoided only if the agency finds that the changes or safeguards in the project sufficiently reduce the impact to a minimum.”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The] decision not to prepare an EIS can only be overturned if the decision was arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion. Judicial review of an agency’s finding of “no significant impact” is not, however, merely perfunetory[,] as the court must insure that the agency took a “hard look” at the environmental consequences of its decision.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is entrusted with the responsibility of considering the various modes of scientific evaluation and theory and choosing the one appropriate for the given circumstances.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.